ICDA - MX Line - MRPL - Multiphase Flow Modeling Report Draft 1.0 - 23 - Enero - 2020

MRPL
MX Line – MRPL Pump House to Coastal Terminal

Internal Corrosion Direct Assessment (ICDA)
Report of Multiphase Flow Modeling
January 19, 2020 V1.0

Multiphase Flow Modeling
MX Line - MRPL Pump House to Coastal Terminal
1. Objective
Perform multiphase flow calculations using data collected to determine flow rates, water
accumulation and integrating the results of the flow calculation, drop pressure, drop
temperature with the pipe elevation profile.
2. Process Description
Process Schematic
Figure 1: Schematic of the MX Line – MRPL Pump Houses to Costal Terminal

3. Scope of Work
MODELING SCENARIOS
• From 2001 to October-2015: Mixed Xylene (MX)
Region-1: Flow through 16” pipeline section (Direction of flow: Refinery to CT)
• From October-2015 to December 2017: Reformate
(The primary use of reformate is as a high-octane blend stock for making gasoline. Reformate's high octane comes from the high levels of
aromatics that it contains.)
Region-4: Reverse flow through 12” pipeline section (Direction of flow: CT to Refinery)
• From December 2017-Current: Motor Spirit (MS) / MoGas / Gasoline
Region-2: Flow through 14” pipeline section (Direction of flow: Refinery to CT)Region-3: Flow through 12” pipeline section (Direction of flow: Refinery to CT)
• Sea Water
Duration of Flow- Quantity
Flowing Pressure
S. No. Defined Era (From) Defined Era To Each Era (No. Product Flow Direction rate Temp (°C) Transport
/ Shut-in (psi)
of Days) (m3/hr) ed (m3)
4 1-Feb-16 2-Feb-16 1 Sea Water Reverse Flowing 500 106.7 28 929
5 1-Aug-16 2-Aug-16 1 Sea Water Reverse Flowing 500 106.7 28 200
6 1-Jun-18 2-Jun-18 1 Sea Water Reverse Flowing 500 106.7 28 200

4. Identification of LP-ICDA Regions

Based on the data and the operational parameters, the selected LP-ICDA regions are reflected in Fig. 2 bellow:
Note:
Region 1-2-3 applies to the
flow in normal direction,
from MRPL to CT
Note:
Region 4-5-6 applies to the
flow in reverse direction,
from CT to MRPL
Figure 2: Region Identification – MX Line

5. Technical Information
5.1. Pipeline Characteristics
Table 1: Pipeline Data for MX Line
S. No. Item Value
Pipeline Description
1 Pipe Grade API-5L-Gr. B
2 WT (mm) 16” - 6.4 / 14” - 7.9 / 12.75 - 6.4
3 Commissioning Year Nov-2001
4 Pipeline Length (m) 11,000
5 Diameter, inch 16” / 14” / 12.75”
7 Material Composition of Pipe Carbon Steel
Two (2) x 90 Bends
8 Geometries
Eleven (11) x Bends
9 Presence of Elbows Three (3)
10 Presence of Tees Yes (upstream of IJ-2) illustrated in Figure-1 above
11 Presence of Expansions None

Two (2) @ 1.45 Km (16” -> 14”) and 3.1 Km (14” ->
12 Presence of Reductions
12”)
15 External Coating Double coat triple wrap Coal Tar Enamel (CTE)
Pipeline Operations Data

17 Fluid Temperature (°C) - Min 28
18 Fluid Temperature (°C) - Max 36
19 Fluid Temperature (°C) - Operating 32 (average of above minimum and maximum)
20 Fluid Pressure (psi) - Min 3 Kg/cm2 ≈ 42.7 psi

21 Fluid Pressure (psi) - Max 30 Kg/cm2 ≈ 426.7 psi (MAOP)
22 Fluid Pressure (psi) - Operating 15 Kg/cm2 ≈ 213.35 psi
25 Liquid Flow Rate - Min 800 m3/hour
26 Liquid Flow Rate (kL/hr) - Max 1200 m3/hour
27 Liquid Flow Rate (kL/hr) - Operating 1000 m3/hour (calculated average)
Mixed Xylene = 867

28 Density (Kg/cm3) Motor Spirit =733.1
MoGas = 731.1
29 Kinematic Viscosity N/A

30 Water Flow Rate Assume 0.05 bbl/day
34 Flow Rate of Gas - Min -
37 Ambient Air Temperature (°C) 23 to 33
5. Technical Information (cont.)
5.2. Elevation Profile for Normal flow – MRPL To CT
Pipe_Center_Elevation Profile (m)

2
Elevation (m)
0
0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0 9000.0 10000.0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
Region 1 Region 2 Region 3
Elevation
-7 Profile
Chainage (m)
Figure 3. MX Line – Normal flow Elevation Profile

5. Technical Information (cont.)
5.2. Elevation Profile for Reverse flow – CT To MRPL
Region 4 Region 5 Region 6
Figure 4. MX Line – Reverse flow Elevation Profile

6. Methodology
Pipeline modeling and simulation was performed by using the commercial software Aspen Hysys v11.0 with the
follow considerations:
6.1 Assumptions:
• The density 867.0 Kg/m3 reported by AE in PrA is assumed at standard conditions (15 °C). The input
characterization for scenario 1 was carried out as shown in section 6.3.
• For the crude oil characterization of scenario 2, the technical specifications of the datasheet
"spec_reformate_1437546110" were used. Section 6.4 shows the detail of the characterization.
Figure 3. Specification for reformate Datasheet

6. Methodology
6.1 Assumptions (Cont.):
• The crude oil characterization of scenario 3 was based on the datasheet entitled "spec motor gasoline" with
physicochemical properties that allowed the crude oil characterization, this procedure is shown in section 6.5
Figure 4: Specification for motor gasoline Datasheet

6. Methodology
6.1 Assumptions (Cont.):
• The average buried depth was calculated for each device within the simulation, as an average of the depth of each
of the segments within each simulated device in Hysys and based on data from the pipeline center elevation in the
PrA. These data are shown in section 6.6
• The double wrap triple wrap Coal Tar Enamel (CTE) layer was introduced to the simulator with a thickness of 2.4mm;
density 1500 Kg/m3 and conductivity 0.1030 W/m-K
6.2 Fluid Package:
For Hysys simulation : Peng-Robinson

Fluid Packing transition : T-P Flash
Aspen Hydraulics is using a COM Thermo fluid package and fluid package transition.
6.3 Input characterization for Mixed Xylene Scenario 1 (normal flow, from MRPL to CT)
AE in PrA reports a density for the Mixed Xylene of 867 kg/m3. In Hysys v11.0 a composition of
xylenes was established that met the density reported in PrA, which is shown below.
Figure 6. Density result calculated by

Figure 5. Mixed Xylene composition
hysys for the Mixed Xylene
6.4 Oil characterization for Reformate Scenario 2 (reverse flow, from CT to MRPL)
The characterization of crude oil for the refurbishment was carried out in Aspen Hysys v11.0
(Petroleum Administrator Mode). From the datasheet "spec_reformate_1437546110", the values of the
ASTM D86 assay curve and the density at standard conditions were entered in the Oil Manager tool of
the simulator, generating a stream that meets the properties given by AE in the PrA , specifically the
density at standard conditions (15 ° C)
Calculated
Assumed Datasheet PrA density
density
density @15°C density @15°C @15°C
@15°C
(Kg/m3) (Kg/m3) (Kg/m3)
(Kg/m3)
830.0 828.0 830.0 828.6
Figure 7. Results of Hysys Crude oil characterization

for reformate.
6.5 Oil characterization for MoGas Scenario 3 (normal flow, from MRPL to CT):
The characterization of MoGas crude oil (Motor Spirit / Gasoline) was carried out in Aspen Hysys v11.0
(Oil Manager Mode). From the data sheet "spec motor gasoline" used for the MoGas, the standard
density values @ 15 ° C and the values of the ASTM D86 curve were taken and entered into the Oil
Manager tool in Hysys v11.0, thus generating the stream necessary for the simulation that meets the
properties given by AE in the PrA.
Assumed Datasheet Calculated

PrA density
density density density
@15°C
@15°C @15°C @15°C
(Kg/m3)
(Kg/m3) (Kg/m3) (Kg/m3)
731.0 720 to 775 731.1 731.0
Figure 7. Results of Hysys Crude oil characterization

for MoGas.
6.6 Seawater characterization for Scenario 4 (reverse flow, from CT to MRPL)
For the simulation of the seawater stream, the density value established by AE in the PrA of 1029 Kg / m3 was
taken as a comparison value.
Figure 7. Density of Seawater stream in simulation

6.7 Buried depth:

From the "Final Elevs for ICPM" file, the corresponding depths were taken for each pipeline section.
These values were averaged for each simulation device according to the best simulation practices in
Aspen Hydraulics for the heat transfer model.
The averages for flow geometry from MRPL to CT are shown in the table below.
Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m)
100 -0.58 120 -0.86 140 -2.88 160 -3.37 180 -5.97 200 -4.50 220 -4.47
101 -0.45 121 -0.87 141 -2.97 161 -3.36 181 -5.97 201 -4.48 221 -4.46
102 -0.15 122 -0.87 142 -3.10 162 -3.74 182 -5.97 202 -4.48 222 -4.46
103 0.78 123 -0.78 143 -3.18 163 -4.90 183 -5.97 203 -4.48 223 -4.46
104 0.73 124 -0.75 144 -3.22 164 -5.21 184 -5.97 204 -4.48 224 -4.45
105 0.49 125 -0.76 145 -3.25 165 -5.26 185 -5.97 205 -4.48 225 -4.37
106 0.26 126 -2.14 146 -3.29 166 -5.32 186 -5.96 206 -4.48 226 -4.36
107 0.07 127 -2.30 147 -3.33 167 -5.35 187 -5.96 207 -4.48 227 -4.37
108 -0.11 128 -2.40 148 -3.36 168 -5.38 188 -5.96 208 -4.48 228 -4.37
109 -0.38 129 -2.43 149 -3.40 169 -5.41 189 -5.96 209 -4.47 229 -4.37
110 -0.48 130 -2.45 150 -3.42 170 -5.46 190 -5.96 210 -4.47 230 -4.37
111 -0.49 131 -2.47 151 -3.40 171 -5.48 191 -5.89 211 -4.47 231 -4.37
112 -0.52 132 -2.50 152 -3.39 172 -5.52 192 -5.72 212 -4.47 232 -4.38
113 -0.68 133 -2.52 153 -3.38 173 -5.59 193 -5.57 213 -4.47 233 -4.38
114 -0.70 134 -2.54 154 -3.38 174 -5.67 194 -5.40 214 -4.47 234 -4.38
115 -0.72 135 -2.56 155 -3.38 175 -5.73 195 -5.25 215 -4.47 235 -4.38
116 -0.75 136 -2.58 156 -3.37 176 -5.81 196 -5.10 216 -4.47 236 -4.38
117 -0.77 137 -2.60 157 -3.37 177 -5.88 197 -4.95 217 -4.47 237 -4.39
118 -0.80 138 -2.67 158 -3.37 178 -5.91 198 -4.79 218 -4.47 238 -4.39
119 -0.83 139 -2.78 159 -3.37 179 -5.95 199 -4.63 219 -4.47 239 -3.69
Table 2. Buried Depth normal flow

6.7 Buried depth (cont.):

The averages for flow geometry from CT to MRPL are shown in the table below.
Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m) Device Average (m)
100 -3.69 120 -4.47 140 -4.80 160 -5.97 180 -3.36 200 -2.95 220 -0.86
101 -4.39 121 -4.47 141 -4.96 161 -5.97 181 -3.37 201 -2.86 221 -0.82
102 -4.38 122 -4.47 142 -5.12 162 -5.94 182 -3.37 202 -2.76 222 -0.80
103 -4.38 123 -4.47 143 -5.27 163 -5.90 183 -3.37 203 -2.66 223 -0.77
104 -4.38 124 -4.47 144 -5.42 164 -5.88 184 -3.37 204 -2.60 224 -0.75
105 -4.38 125 -4.47 145 -5.59 165 -5.80 185 -3.38 205 -2.58 225 -0.72
106 -4.38 126 -4.47 146 -5.73 166 -5.71 186 -3.38 206 -2.55 226 -0.70
107 -4.38 127 -4.47 147 -5.90 167 -5.68 187 -3.38 207 -2.53 227 -0.63
108 -4.37 128 -4.47 148 -5.96 168 -5.64 188 -3.38 208 -2.51 228 -0.51
109 -4.37 129 -4.47 149 -5.96 169 -5.53 189 -3.39 209 -2.49 229 -0.49
110 -4.37 130 -4.48 150 -5.96 170 -5.49 190 -3.41 210 -2.47 230 -0.40
111 -4.37 131 -4.48 151 -5.96 171 -5.45 191 -3.42 211 -2.44 231 -0.32
112 -4.36 132 -4.48 152 -5.96 172 -5.40 192 -3.39 212 -2.43 232 -0.04
113 -4.37 133 -4.48 153 -5.96 173 -5.37 193 -3.35 213 -2.36 233 0.17
114 -4.46 134 -4.48 154 -5.97 174 -5.34 194 -3.32 214 -0.76 234 0.43
115 -4.46 135 -4.48 155 -5.97 175 -5.30 195 -3.28 215 -0.75 235 0.65
116 -4.46 136 -4.48 156 -5.97 176 -5.24 196 -3.24 216 -0.77 236 0.82
117 -4.46 137 -4.48 157 -5.97 177 -5.17 197 -3.21 217 -0.78 237 0.79
118 -4.47 138 -4.50 158 -5.97 178 -4.97 198 -3.17 218 -0.87 238 -0.34
119 -4.47 139 -4.65 159 -5.97 179 -3.86 199 -3.07 219 -0.87 239 -0.58
Table 3. Buried Depth reverse flow

6.8 Building a simulation model: Scenario 1 (Mixed Xylene normal flow, from MRPL to CT)
The fluid flow model, was constructed with the following information: 1) Input compound data and mixture
density; 2) The sizes, distances and thickness of the pipe; 3) Flow and temperature in the start point (1000
m3/h, 32 °C); 4) The pressure at the point of arrival; 5) The scenarios proposed in PrA and 6) The pipe was
partitioned into sections that correspond to the premise that each section was less than or equal to 20 m.
To calculate the pressure drop in pipes, the Tulsa unified model 3-phases correlation, is highly recommended
by the Hysys specialist and was selected.
The figure below show the Aspen Hysys simulation model schematic.
Figure 9. Scenario 1. Simulation model

6.8 Building a simulation model (Cont.): Scenario 2 (Reformate reverse flow, from CT to MRPL)
The fluid flow model, was constructed with the following information: 1) Characterization data and density; 2) The
sizes, distances and thickness of the pipe; 3) The pressure, flow and temperature in the start point (106.7 psig,
500 m3/h and 32 °C); 4) The scenarios proposed in PrA and 5) The pipe was partitioned into sections that
correspond to the premise that each section was less than or equal to 20 m.
To calculate the pressure drop in pipes, the Tulsa unified model 3-phases correlation, is highly recommended by
the Hysys specialist and was selected.

6.8 Building a simulation model (Cont.): Scenario 3 (MoGas normal flow, from MRPL to CT)
The fluid flow model, was constructed with the following information: 1) Characterization data and density; 2) The
sizes, distances and thickness of the pipe; 3) The flow and temperature in the start point (1000 m3/h and 32 °C);
4) The pressure at the point of arrival; 5) The scenarios proposed in PrA and 6) The pipe was partitioned into
sections that correspond to the premise that each section was less than or equal to 20 m.
To calculate the pressure drop in pipes, the Tulsa unified model 3-phases correlation, is highly recommended by
the Hysys specialist and was selected.

6.8 Building a simulation model (Cont.): Scenario 4 (Seawater reverse flow, from CT to MRPL)
The fluid flow model, was constructed with the following information: 1) Input compound data and density; 2)
The sizes, distances and thickness of the pipe; 3) The pressure, flow and temperature in the start point
(106.7 psig, 500 m3/h and 32 °C); 4) The scenarios proposed in PrA and 5) The pipe was partitioned into
sections that correspond to the premise that each section was less than or equal to 20 m.
To calculate the pressure drop in pipes, the Tulsa unified model 3-phases correlation, is highly recommended
by the Hysys specialist and was selected.

6.8 Building a simulation model (cont):
The heat transfer model was built by entering the following considerations shown in figure 8 to the simulator
and the information shown in table 1 and section 6.7 (tables 2 & 3)
Material
Coal Tar Enamel
Figure 11. Heat transfer parameters

6.9 Running the simulation model:
According to the scenarios stipulated by AE in the scope of work, the simulation was run with the operational
condition stablished in the table 1, for each one. The simulation is run on a steady state, and, each segment
of pipeline is assigned an average depth value in accordance with the data supplied by AE and the
established scenarios (normal flow and reverse flow) which establishes the construction of two simulations,
one for normal flow (MRPL to CT) and reverse flow (CT to MRPL), which allow the flow patterns and
pressure drop to be studied for each case study established.
Results:
Scenario – 1: From 2001 to October-2015: Mixed Xylene (MX) [Flow rate = 1000 m3/h
plus 0.05 bbls per day of water ]
Direction of flow: Refinery to CT
Refinary Costal Terminal

Results:
plus 0.05 bbls per day of water]

Results:
the pressure predicted by the

simulator (301.63 psig),
guarantees transport to CT and
is within the operating range of
the pumping system

Results:

Results:
Phase Diagram
Results:
Scenario – 2: From October-2015 to December 2017: Reformate [Flow rate = 500 m3/h
Direction of flow: Reverse
Costal Terminal Refinary

Results:

Results:

Results:

Results:
Phase Diagram
Results:
Scenario – 3: From December 2017-Current: Motor Spirit / MoGas / Gasoline [Flow rate =
1000 m3/h plus 0.05 bbls per day of water]
Results:
Results:
the pressure predicted by the

simulator (259.73 psig),
guarantees transport to CT and
is within the operating range of
the pumping system
Results:
Results:
Phase Diagram
Results:
Scenario – 4: Sea Water [Flow rate = 500 m3/h] - Direction of flow: Reverse

Results:

Results:

Results:

ICDA - MX Line - MRPL - Multiphase Flow Modeling Report Draft 1.0 - 23 - Enero - 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICDA - MX Line - MRPL - Multiphase Flow Modeling Report Draft 1.0 - 23 - Enero - 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MRPL

MX Line – MRPL Pump House to Coastal Terminal

Report of Multiphase Flow Modeling

January 19, 2020 V1.0

Figure 1: Schematic of the MX Line – MRPL Pump Houses to Costal Terminal

4 1-Feb-16 2-Feb-16 1 Sea Water Reverse Flowing 500 106.7 28 929

5 1-Aug-16 2-Aug-16 1 Sea Water Reverse Flowing 500 106.7 28 200

6 1-Jun-18 2-Jun-18 1 Sea Water Reverse Flowing 500 106.7 28 200

4. Identification of LP-ICDA Regions

Figure 2: Region Identification – MX Line

10 Presence of Tees Yes (upstream of IJ-2) illustrated in Figure-1 above

11 Presence of Expansions None

Pipeline Operations Data

19 Fluid Temperature (°C) - Operating 32 (average of above minimum and maximum)

20 Fluid Pressure (psi) - Min 3 Kg/cm2 ≈ 42.7 psi

26 Liquid Flow Rate (kL/hr) - Max 1200 m3/hour

27 Liquid Flow Rate (kL/hr) - Operating 1000 m3/hour (calculated average)

Mixed Xylene = 867

29 Kinematic Viscosity N/A

Pipe_Center_Elevation Profile (m)

Figure 3. MX Line – Normal flow Elevation Profile

Region 4 Region 5 Region 6

Figure 4. MX Line – Reverse flow Elevation Profile

Figure 3. Specification for reformate Datasheet

Figure 4: Specification for motor gasoline Datasheet

6.2 Fluid Package:

For Hysys simulation : Peng-Robinson

Figure 6. Density result calculated by

Figure 7. Results of Hysys Crude oil characterization

Assumed Datasheet Calculated

Figure 7. Results of Hysys Crude oil characterization

6.6 Seawater characterization for Scenario 4 (reverse flow, from CT to MRPL)

Figure 7. Density of Seawater stream in simulation

6.7 Buried depth:

Table 2. Buried Depth normal flow

6.7 Buried depth (cont.):

Table 3. Buried Depth reverse flow

Figure 9. Scenario 1. Simulation model

Figure 10. Scenario 2. Simulation model

Figure 10. Scenario 2. Simulation model

Figure 10. Scenario 2. Simulation model

6.8 Building a simulation model (cont):

Coal Tar Enamel

Figure 11. Heat transfer parameters

6.9 Running the simulation model:

Refinary Costal Terminal

Refinary Costal Terminal

the pressure predicted by the

Refinary Costal Terminal

Refinary Costal Terminal

Costal Terminal Refinary

Costal Terminal Refinary

Costal Terminal Refinary

Costal Terminal Refinary

the pressure predicted by the

Costal Terminal Refinary

Costal Terminal Refinary

Costal Terminal Refinary

Costal Terminal Refinary

You might also like